Paul Churchland - "Dumbest thing I ever heard"

[@petermaurer8087]

Paul: "David Chalmers" . Audience chuckles

[@PessimisticIdealism]

*“Kripkean Semantics for Modal Logic” enters the chat* > Paul Churchland rage quits.

[@KaneB]

Paul Churchland: "Beliefs and desires don't exist lol" Also Paul Churchland: "P is possible iff P is true in some possible world? Dumbest thing I ever heard."

[@yuriarin3237]

end the series on Quine's critique of modal logic

[@yuriarin3237]

you haven't finished it

[@DarrenMcStravick]

I can't tell if he's snagged on possible *worlds*, quantifying over modality or both. (I haven't read his views and this vid is the only thing I've heard from him)

[@philp521]

There’s a great story from Stephen Yablo about explaining his Kripke-centric dissertation at Pitt and getting a similarly incredulous reaction from Sellars, Churchland’s doktorvater. (The Sellarsians are in the right here.)

[@yuriarin3237]

do u have the sauce?

[@antiirony]

Wow deep

[@jesselopes5196]

when you quantify over all possible worlds, you open the door to unstable intuitions (hence "not a well-defined sense") - but unstable intuitions are what analytic philosophers most desire, since then you get to talk endlessly about nothing (as opposed to Paul's neural networks, which are at least something?)

[@hss12661]

Exactly. Even Jackson acknowledged that his knowledge argument is BS.

[@samcopeland3155]

This guy put a sting on Kripke

[@blablabubles]

I love that this is coming from churchland. And he is wrong as far as I can tell. You can have an account of possibility which is tied to conceivability without holding to full blown kripkean semantics. See Descartes for example.

[@TheBrunarr]

Says the eliminativist

[@jamereut]

Churchland is right.

[@10mimu]

we should be eliminativists about eliminavists, plain and simple. there's no such thing as eliminativism lol

[@szefszefow7562]

Churchland is based tho

[@5piles]

this guy literally thinks if you put the appropriate rods and cones in a petridish, colors and shapes will emerge in that petridish, because the physical basis for properties are there and colors and shapes are nothing other than those propertes. then again so does crick. these are obviously severely mentally ill ppl brainwashed by dogma, as are all of your institutions, in case you couldnt already tell.

[@PettruchioL]

The dumbest thing I have heard was Churchland's philosophy.